[General Battuta]

Also again, you wouldn't be saying that if the target was something you dislike. You can argue that's not true but I really won't believe you.

I've told people off for going too far when having a go at Derek Smart.

So not only are you wrong, I've got proof you're talking bollocks.

I've done so myself. But I doubt you've written any angry letters to the numerous Internet diaries of Derek Smart's hilarities. They're not close enough for you to care!

[NGTM-1R]

You successfully refute your first comment with your second one. Well done sir!

EDIT: That was for Karaj.

Basically, if you want to slag off analysis for fun, you're an even bigger wanker than he is.

[karajorma]

I'm not slagging off analysis for fun. I'm saying if you go past the point where you're actually performing any analysis of the matter and simply bashing it, regardless of the quality, then you are a wanker.

I've done so myself. But I doubt you've written any angry letters to the numerous Internet diaries of Derek Smart's hilarities. They're not close enough for you to care!

You have repeatedly claimed I would be willing to accept excessive criticism if I didn't like the subject matter. I've proved you wrong. Are you now claiming I have to write angry letters to prove I don't like something?

[General Battuta]

No, I've said you'd be willing to accept excessive criticism if you didn't like the subject matter but also didn't particularly care about the subject matter. Opinions are plotted on what is at the very least a two-axis plane, with valence only being one axis.

And I don't think you've made an argument for simple bashing, I think the site itself makes a good argument for just being overzealous. Plus you again can't call anyone a wanker without individuating and attributing; there's more than one person here.

[karajorma]

No, I've said you'd be willing to accept excessive criticism if you didn't like the subject matter but also didn't particularly care about the subject matter. Opinions are plotted on what is at the very least a two-axis plane, with valence only being one axis.

That's a rather pointless argument though. I could similarly claim that you wouldn't have posted the XKCDSucks site if you didn't care about XKCD or XKCDSucks. I can point out we wouldn't be on the 6th page of this topic if you didn't care, you would have simply accepted the comment that they were wankers and moved on.

And I don't think you've made an argument for simple bashing, I think the site itself makes a good argument for just being overzealous. Plus you again can't call anyone a wanker without individuating and attributing; there's more than one person here.

Probably cause you actually like XKCDSucks.


See, I can claim bias too.

[NGTM-1R]

Probably cause you actually like XKCDSucks.

See, I can claim bias too.

I don't!

WHERE IS YOUR BIAS NOW.

[General Battuta]

No, I've said you'd be willing to accept excessive criticism if you didn't like the subject matter but also didn't particularly care about the subject matter. Opinions are plotted on what is at the very least a two-axis plane, with valence only being one axis.

That's a rather pointless argument though. I could similarly claim that you wouldn't have posted the XKCDSucks site if you didn't care about XKCD or XKCDSucks. I can point out we wouldn't be on the 6th page of this topic if you didn't care, you would have simply accepted the comment that they were wankers and moved on.

I did accept the comment; made it clear I wouldn't necessarily dispute it. You can read back a few pages and find it. It kept getting pressed for some reason. Unclear on why.

And I don't think you've made an argument for simple bashing, I think the site itself makes a good argument for just being overzealous. Plus you again can't call anyone a wanker without individuating and attributing; there's more than one person here.

Probably cause you actually like XKCDSucks.


See, I can claim bias too.

No, I like myself, and my participation in this argument is about my personal merits. As I said above in the 'pointless argument', there are at least two axes on the coordinate plane, and while I may have an opinion on the topic (valence) I don't particularly give a **** about either XKCD or its detractors (amplitude.)

'Claim bias', what a bizarre notion. It's like 'claiming language'. It's always present.

[karajorma]

I did accept the comment; made it clear I wouldn't necessarily dispute it. You can read back a few pages and find it. It kept getting pressed for some reason. Unclear on why.

Because you have repeatedly claimed that whether someone likes a site or not has relevance to this discussion. It really doesn't and now you seem to be finally claiming that. If you want to try to claim we must argue this matter without bringing up your attachment to the site you should afford me the same courtesy and avoid continually claiming that I would be of your opinion about a subject I didn't like or didn't care about. 

'Claim bias', what a bizarre notion. It's like 'claiming language'. It's always present.

Which is why I have an issue with you saying I have it.

[General Battuta]

Because you have repeatedly claimed that whether someone likes a site or not has relevance to this discussion. It really doesn't and now you seem to be finally claiming that. If you want to try to claim we must argue this matter without bringing up your attachment to the site you should afford me the same courtesy and avoid continually claiming that I would be of your opinion about a subject I didn't like or didn't care about.  

I'll repost again:

Anyway I've said more than once now that I don't necessarily disagree with points re: that site (referencing the fact that it's probably taken things a bit too far), so not sure why it keeps coming up. It's useful to me because it has a great URL that makes a point many people in the groupthink haven't considered. Useful for dorm listhosts, for one.

Whether or not it's run by a wanker or not I have trouble bringing myself to give a **** about. I like when people go to ad homs to undercut arguments, though; it evinces a willingness to get upset about a topic!

Which is why I have an issue with you saying I have it.

You probably wouldn't have taken that issue if you'd spent another minute to consider the metaphor it followed from. Bias is omnipresent, language is omnipresent. This doesn't mean language is irrelevant, can't be dissected, studied, categorized, used to explain behavioral traits. Similarly, framing, bias, all sorts of heuristics will impact the way a discussion goes.

The reason this discussion is ongoing is because people have tied their own egos into the issues. It's the same reason most arguments go on.

Attribution is probably not going to be helpful to the discussion, so avoiding 'I' and 'you' might be a decent tact; it's a shortcut to getting yourself offended.

[iamzack]

Oh god, the argument is now about the dumbest serious argument on HLP. METARETARDATION, NOOOOOO

[karajorma]

Whether or not it's run by a wanker or not I have trouble bringing myself to give a **** about.

Given that you have spent 6 pages trying to persuade me that I'm wrong. I don't believe you.


As for bias, you've missed my point. I have a problem with you trying to claim (as you did above) that you don't have a bias in this argument but I do.

[General Battuta]

Whether or not it's run by a wanker or not I have trouble bringing myself to give a **** about.

Given that you have spent 6 pages trying to persuade me that I'm wrong. I don't believe you.

As for bias, you've missed my point. I have a problem with you trying to claim (as you did above) that you don't have a bias in this argument but I do.

Really? I don't think those are claims I've tried to make, at least on my side of the perception gap.

The second claim in particular I'd never make, though I can see how you'd take it that way.

[General Battuta]

Yeah looking back I can't see any assertions along those lines. I think it's something constructed on your side.

[NGTM-1R]

Given that you have spent 6 pages trying to persuade me that I'm wrong. I don't believe you.

As for bias, you've missed my point. I have a problem with you trying to claim (as you did above) that you don't have a bias in this argument but I do.

Contrary to what you may have heard, Battuta and I are not a single entity. (For one thing, that'd mean Rian and Alessia are too.)

Now he may be a wanker, or he may just be delivering the most devastating criticism possible. I don't regard them as mutually exclusive. In fact, it's better than your critics are wankers to a degree. As a loyal Sartinist on the matter of criticism and review, I live by the mantra that reviewers and critics should be enlisted for the strength of their cruelty.

So basically, accusing a critic of being a wanker rather than attempting to refute or even study his points, you've lost the plot. Wankerhood, like hypocrisy, has no bearing on factual correctness. And by abandoning facts for accusations of wanking, you've turned yourself into a greater wanker than he'll ever be because now we're down to pure, unsupported trolling.

[karajorma]

Contrary to what you may have heard, Battuta and I are not a single entity. (For one thing, that'd mean Rian and Alessia are too.)

I'll address this point first.

When the hell did I imply that you were? You quote a post in which not only did I directly reply to Battata but even directly quoted him.

If you're on about the bias thing, that's because I'm about to have a serious go at Battuta on the subject. You never brought up bias so the argument doesn't apply to you. You can disregard the bias argument because I was bringing it up entirely to point out that I wasn't allowing bias to affect my point of view despite Battuta's repeated claims that I was.

Yeah looking back I can't see any assertions along those lines. I think it's something constructed on your side.

You can't? Okay, lets get started then.

I think you think he's pathetic because you disagree with him. I think if he was writing about Twilight, or passages from Terry Brooks novels (both of which I've seen), can't you conceive of a situation in which you'd find this a hilarious and worthwhile pastime?

i.e You're saying "You're biased because you like XKCD. If you didn't like it you would have a more objective view/agree with me."

Also again, you wouldn't be saying that if the target was something you dislike. You can argue that's not true but I really won't believe you.

Now you're basically saying the same thing to Iamzack.

No, I've said you'd be willing to accept excessive criticism if you didn't like the subject matter but also didn't particularly care about the subject matter. Opinions are plotted on what is at the very least a two-axis plane, with valence only being one axis.

And now again you're saying the same thing but you've substitute caring for liking. Doesn't really pertain in the slightest as to whether the site is a pathetic waste of time or not, which if you recall was the matter at hand.

The reason this discussion is ongoing is because people have tied their own egos into the issues. It's the same reason most arguments go on.

Finally you get to the real reason this is still going. So since you are well aware why this discussion has gone on so long why not drop this bull**** about caring or liking websites and get back to the matter at hand. Is the xkcdsucks website a waste of time?

With that in mind shall I point out that Rob is himself getting significant criticism on that website from people who are calling him out for the same **** that I've called him on.  For instance this post

/sigh...Rob ever since you took over your hate has been arbitrary and pathetic. Sure xkcdsucks has been going down hill for a bit, and it seemed like it was starting to stretch for the hate rather than letting it flow naturally, but the heart was always there.

Rob you are to xkcdsucks what Randal is to xkcd. Sure you mean well and want to deliver quality, but it always seems forced and mechanical.

You didn't even attack the comic from a comedy angle. You were just all "THATS IMPOSSIBLZ RAWR! COMIC BADZ! BLARG! I HATZE NERRRRRRDS!!!! RAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!"

I'll post that as supporting evidence against NGTM-1R since he appears to have missed it when I pointed out the exact same flaw in the writers criticism. Oh, while I'm at it.

why the ****ing 'he', this is like the ninth time I've pointed out it's a community

I'll point out that all the posts on the front page are by Rob and at the top of the page we have

new website!
Dear beloved reader - if you have not heard the news, I've stopped blogging here and started up a new site called webcomics.me. It's a general webcomics blog and I am excited to see how it goes. You can read more about why I made this decision here. As to what will happen to dear old xkcdsucks - it's unclear. Rob seems to still want to post sometimes. That's cool. I don't plan to write much more here, it'll all be over at the new place.

Sounds like first person singular to me. But if it avoids this particular complaint coming up again let's assume Rob is the sad act wanker that we're referring to with he.

[General Battuta]

Yeah looking back I can't see any assertions along those lines. I think it's something constructed on your side.

You can't? Okay, lets get started then.

I think you think he's pathetic because you disagree with him. I think if he was writing about Twilight, or passages from Terry Brooks novels (both of which I've seen), can't you conceive of a situation in which you'd find this a hilarious and worthwhile pastime?

i.e You're saying "You're biased because you like XKCD. If you didn't like it you would have a more objective view/agree with me."

Where does disagreeing with him equate to liking XKCD? Where does it imply that I do not have bias (which was a full half of the point you claimed I was asserting?)

Now you're basically saying the same thing to Iamzack.

Fails on the same grounds.

No, I've said you'd be willing to accept excessive criticism if you didn't like the subject matter but also didn't particularly care about the subject matter. Opinions are plotted on what is at the very least a two-axis plane, with valence only being one axis.

And now again you're saying the same thing but you've substitute caring for liking. Doesn't really pertain in the slightest as to whether the site is a pathetic waste of time or not, which if you recall was the matter at hand.

Not a substitution at all; I'm arguing caring and liking (valence) are two axes of opinion.

The reason this discussion is ongoing is because people have tied their own egos into the issues. It's the same reason most arguments go on.

Finally you get to the real reason this is still going. So since you are well aware why this discussion has gone on so long why not drop this bull**** about caring or liking websites and get back to the matter at hand. Is the xkcdsucks website a waste of time?

Because I like the chaos? The matter at hand for you is whether the xkcdsucks website is a waste of time; it's not a question I'm particularly interested in. It has value to me, which I've already expressed.

With that in mind shall I point out that Rob is himself getting significant criticism on that website from people who are calling him out for the same **** that I've called him on.  For instance this post

/sigh...Rob ever since you took over your hate has been arbitrary and pathetic. Sure xkcdsucks has been going down hill for a bit, and it seemed like it was starting to stretch for the hate rather than letting it flow naturally, but the heart was always there.

Rob you are to xkcdsucks what Randal is to xkcd. Sure you mean well and want to deliver quality, but it always seems forced and mechanical.

You didn't even attack the comic from a comedy angle. You were just all "THATS IMPOSSIBLZ RAWR! COMIC BADZ! BLARG! I HATZE NERRRRRRDS!!!! RAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!"

I'll post that as supporting evidence against NGTM-1R since he appears to have missed it when I pointed out the exact same flaw in the writers criticism. Oh, while I'm at it.

You've now spent more time reading the site than me! I'll refer you back to my earlier posts for my explanation of why I value the website. The question of why you're still arguing the point of whether the website goes too far after I've explicitly said I don't disagree (more than once) is a fair component of why I find this discussion so invigorating.

why the ****ing 'he', this is like the ninth time I've pointed out it's a community

I'll point out that all the posts on the front page are by Rob and at the top of the page we have

new website!
Dear beloved reader - if you have not heard the news, I've stopped blogging here and started up a new site called webcomics.me. It's a general webcomics blog and I am excited to see how it goes. You can read more about why I made this decision here. As to what will happen to dear old xkcdsucks - it's unclear. Rob seems to still want to post sometimes. That's cool. I don't plan to write much more here, it'll all be over at the new place.

Sounds like first person singular to me. But if it avoids this particular complaint coming up again let's assume Rob is the sad act wanker that we're referring to with he.

I think I recall a bunch of guest posts, it was good times.

[NGTM-1R]

I'll address this point first.

When the hell did I imply that you were? You quote a post in which not only did I directly reply to Battata but even directly quoted him. '

It was the only logical reason why you'd say Battuta has been arguing with you for six pages about whether or not the man is a wanker, or for that matter why you'd argue the bias point with Battuta, because both are clearly false. Battuta has made neither claim.

I on the other hand have made both claims.

You never brought up bias so the argument doesn't apply to you.

I don't!

WHERE IS YOUR BIAS NOW.

Also, this is a public thread. If you don't want to have a discussion where people interject about bias whether you like it or not, I suggest you discuss that point over PMs instead of "this isn't your business".

Though it is.

You can disregard the bias argument because I was bringing it up entirely to point out that I wasn't allowing bias to affect my point of view despite Battuta's repeated claims that I was.

You can no more prove that point by arguing it then you could prove (or disprove) the existence of God, so why you're even trying is frankly totally lost on me.

You're also posting supporting evidence that does not support your thesis against me. In fact, it supports my thesis against you. You are attempting to delegitimize the criticism by outright trolling it as wankery or a waste of time rather than attempting to delegitimize it in the only valid fashion there is: engaging with and disproving its points.

[redsniper]

omg srsly, this thread is dumb and you should all feel dumb.

[General Battuta]

You can disregard the bias argument because I was bringing it up entirely to point out that I wasn't allowing bias to affect my point of view despite Battuta's repeated claims that I was.

This is such a weird, bizarre, pre-cognitive-science thing to say. It's like saying 'I wasn't using breathing to speak my words.' Of course you were. Everybody does. Everybody is biased. Framing impacts the way things are received.

[The E]

I am really ****ing tired of this constant trolling.

Seriously.

Battuta: The Poe's Law thing was not meant as encouragement.
As a friend and fellow global Mod, I would like to suggest to you to reread this thread without your ego on. You once again fall into the cognitive trap of thinking you are right by default, and everybody else is wrong, or mistaken in their analysis of you and your posts.

It's getting a bit annoying. Seriously.

Thread closed.